Washington, DC

U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Classification Appeal Decision
Under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code

---

Linda Kazinetz
Classification Appeals and FLSA Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance


07/12/2017

---

Date

Introduction

The appellant’s position is currently classified as Supervisory Equipment, Facilities, and Services Specialist, GS-1601-11.  However, he believes his position should be classified at the GS-12 level.  The position is assigned to the Maintenance Branch, Support Services Division (SSD), Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Center (DDC), Tinker Air Force Base (AFB), Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.  We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code.

General issues

The appellant makes various statements about his agency’s classification of his position description (PD); asserts they failed to fully consider the complexity and volume of work he performs; and compares his position to other higher-graded positions within his agency.  In adjudicating this appeal our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of the appellant’s position (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112).  Because our decision sets aside all previous agency decisions, the appellant’s concerns regarding his agency’s classification review process are not germane to this decision.  By law, we must classify positions solely by comparing their current duties and responsibilities to OPM standards and guidelines.  In addition, volume of work cannot be considered in determining the grade of a position (The Classifier’s Handbook, Chapter 5).

Position information

Both the appellant and his supervisor certified to the accuracy of his PD of record.

The appellant is the Maintenance Branch Chief for the DDC Oklahoma City (DDCOC) at Tinker AFB.  The DDCOC is one of 24 distribution centers under the command of DLA Distribution, which is a field activity of the DLA.  DDCOC provides a full range of distribution services in support of the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Complex at Tinker AFB including the receipt, storage, packaging, and issuance of military supplies and related support (e.g., 24-hour programmed depot maintenance for aircraft and engines, etc.)  DDCOC provides on-site services to the 552nd Air Control Wing, U. S. Navy Strategic Communications Wing One, the 507th Air Refueling Wing and the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Complex, and off-site services to Air Force bases and DoD installations worldwide with the various systems and commodities procured by DLA and repaired at Tinker AFB.  The Maintenance Branch is responsible for the technical and administrative processes necessary to maintain, repair, track, and replace DDCOC machinery and equipment and to maintain and repair DDCOC’s facilities in support of DLA’s military supply and support functions at Tinker AFB.

Series and title determination

The agency allocated the appellant’s position to the GS-1601 Equipment, Facilities, and Services Series on the basis that he performs both GS-1640 Facility Operations Services and GS-1670 Equipment Services work.  The GS-1601 series covers positions involving (1) work included in two or more of the series in the GS-1600 Equipment, Facilities, and Services Group where no one type of work is series controlling or (2) other two-grade interval equipment, facilities, or services work for which no other series has been established.  The appellant does not dispute the series allocation of his position and we agree it is appropriately placed in the GS-1601 series.

Since there are no titles prescribed for the GS-1601 series, the position may be titled at the agency’s discretion.  Additionally, the appellant’s supervisory responsibilities meet the minimum coverage requirements described in the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG).  Therefore, the prefix “Supervisory” is appropriately added to the title.

Grade determination

When determining the grade of a supervisory position, it is necessary to evaluate both the nonsupervisory and supervisory duties and credit the higher of the two resulting grades.

Evaluation of Nonsupervisory Duties

There are no published grade-level criteria for the GS-1601 series. Therefore, the position was evaluated by application of the Job Family Position Classification Standard (PCS) for Administrative Work in the Equipment, Facilities, and Services Group, GS-1600, which provides grading criteria for nonsupervisory positions in this occupational group, including the GS-1601 series.

The agency credited the appellant’s nonsupervisory work at Levels 1-7, 2-4, 3-4, 4-4, 5-3, 6-2, 7-b, 8-1, and 9-1, for a total of 2,640 points, resulting in GS-11 on the grade conversion table contained within the PCS.  Neither the appellant nor his supervisor disagree with the agency-assigned factor levels and/or grade for his nonsupervisory work and, after careful review, we concur.

Evaluation of Supervisory Duties

The GSSG has six evaluation factors, each with factor level definitions and corresponding point values.  Each factor level describes the minimum characteristics needed to receive credit for the described level.  Positions are evaluated by crediting the points designated for the highest level met under each factor and converting the total to a grade by using the grade conversion table provided in the guide.

The appellant and his supervisor agree with the agency’s evaluation of Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the GSSG and, after careful review, we concur.  However, the appellant disagrees with his agency’s evaluation of Factors 5 and 6.  In addition, the agency did not report their findings associated with the “special situations” section of the guide.  Therefore, we focus our review solely on Factors 5 and 6 and the special situations section of the GSSG.

Factor 5, Difficulty of typical work directed

This factor measures the difficulty and complexity of the basic work most typical of the organization(s) directed, as well as other line, staff, or contracted work for which the supervisor has technical or oversight responsibility, either directly or through subordinate supervisors, team leaders, or others.

In applying this factor, separate instructions are provided for evaluating first level supervisors and second level supervisors (or higher).  In the appellant’s case, his current workforce is 23 authorized full-time positions organized into two work groups.  The appellant directly supervises five GS employees assigned to his immediate office as well as one Maintenance Supervisor who, in turn, directly supervises one FWS work leader and 16 FWS employees.  Thus, the appellant is a second-level supervisor.

In evaluating second-level supervisors under this factor, the GSSG instructs us to begin by using the guide’s evaluation method for first-level supervisors.  This method involves determining the highest grade of basic (mission-oriented) nonsupervisory work performed that constitutes 25 percent or more of the workload (not positions or employees) of the organization.  Work that is graded on the basis of supervisory or leader duties is specifically excluded from this workload calculation.

The current workforce of the maintenance branch consists of the following 23 full-time positions:

GS employees

• 1 Storage Specialist, GS-2030-11
• 1 General Supply Specialist, GS-2001-11
• 3 Support Services Specialists, GS-342-9

FWS employees

• 1 Maintenance Supervisor, WS-5352-10
• 1 Maintenance Leader, WL-5352-10
• 4 Electronic Industrial Control Mechanics, WG-2606-11
• 8 Industrial Equipment Mechanics, WG-5352-10
• 2 Welders, WG-3703-10
• 1 Electrician, WG-2805-10
• 1 Carpenter, WG-4607-9

Each full-time position is considered equivalent to one man-year of work.  Of the 23 total positions which constitute the work of the Maintenance Branch, two must be excluded from the workload calculation as supervisory and/or work leader positions (i.e., the WS-5352-10 Maintenance Supervisor and the WL-5352-10 Maintenance Leader).  Thus, the total number of man-years for the purposes of workload calculation is 21.  Of these positions, two are at GS-11, three are at GS-9, and 17 are represented by FWS positions.  For purposes of the GSSG, all workload must be expressed as GS grades.  Therefore, the FWS positions must be converted to the appropriate GS-equivalent grades in order to evaluate this factor.

We approach the conversion of the FWS positions to the equivalent GS grades by separating them into two broad categories.  The first category includes one-grade interval technical work involving repair and/or construction work requiring judgment and interpretation of technical guides or blueprints in order to carry out the work (i.e., 5352 Maintenance Mechanic, 4607 Carpenter, 3707 Welder, and 2805 Electrician).  Work in these occupations is equivalent in nature to GS technical work requiring extensive practical knowledge gained through experience and/or training involving carrying out tasks, methods, procedures, and computations laid out in published instructions and covered by established guidelines (see the Introduction).  These can be converted to GS-equivalent grades by comparing them to the criteria for GS-802 Engineering Technician work contained in the Job Family Standard (JFS) for Technical Work in the Engineering and Architecture Group, GS-800, which covers related installation, maintenance, operation, and testing work.  Although the GS-800 JFS allows for the classification of work from GS-2 up to GS-12, one-grade interval technical work similar to that performed by the aforementioned FWS series does not normally exceed the GS-7 level.  Beyond the GS-7 level, duties begin to resemble work performed by beginning-level professional employees in the same general occupational field.  Therefore, GS-7 is considered the highest GS-equivalent grade for FWS work in this category.

The second category includes one-grade interval technical work associated with installing, maintaining, troubleshooting, repairing, and calibrating electronic systems and controls (i.e., 2606 Electronic Industrial Control Mechanic).  Work in this occupation is equivalent in nature to GS technical work involving practical and theoretical knowledge of electrical, electronic, and mechanical systems and equipment.  Work in the 2606 series can be converted to GS-equivalent grades by comparing it to the criteria for GS-856 Electronics Technician work also contained in the JFS for Technical Work in the Engineering and Architecture Group, GS-800, which covers occupations associated with development, fabrication, testing, evaluation, and maintenance work for electrical and/or electronic systems and devices.  Although the GS-800 JFS allows for the classification of work from GS-2 up to GS-12, one-grade interval technical work similar to work described in the WG-2606 series does not normally exceed the GS-7 level.  Beyond the GS-7 level, duties begin to resemble beginning-level two-grade interval professional electronics and electrical engineer work.  Therefore, GS-7 is considered the highest GS-equivalent grade for FWS work in this category.

After converting FWS work to the closest equivalent GS grades, we find the workload grade distribution within the Branch is as follows:

GS-11 – 10%

• 1 Storage Specialist, GS-2030-11
• 1 General Supply Specialist, GS-2001-11

GS-9 – 14%

• 3 Support Services Specialists, GS-342-9

GS-7 – 76%

• 4 Electronic Industrial Control Mechanics, WG-2606-11 (GS-7 equivalent)
• 8 Industrial Equipment Mechanics, WG-5352-10 (GS-7 equivalent)
• 2 Welders, WG-3703-10 (GS-7 equivalent)
• 1 Electrician, WG-2805-10 (GS-7 equivalent)
• 1 Carpenter, WG-4607-9 (GS-7 equivalent)

Thus, approximately 76 percent of the man-hours within the Branch equate to the GS-7 level, and approximately 24 percent to the GS-9 level or above.  Therefore, the highest grade which best characterizes the nature of the basic (mission-oriented) nonsupervisory work performed or overseen by the appellant which constitutes at least 25 percent of the workload of the organization, through application of the first-level supervisor evaluation instructions, is GS-7.

Although the GSSG indicates the first-level supervisor evaluation method applied above will often be accurate for many second-level supervisors, it also provides an alternate method for evaluating second-level and higher supervisors under this factor for cases where a heavy supervisory or managerial workload related to work above the base level exists (i.e., requiring at least 50 percent of the supervisor’s duty time).  However, the alternate method is not applicable in the appellant’s case.  The appellant estimated he spends approximately 30 percent of his time directing the work of his GS and FWS subordinates and approximately 70 percent of his time coordinating facility operations (e.g., reviewing and approving building maintenance and repair requests, negotiating with contractors, etc.) and equipment and machine services (e.g., projecting equipment life cycles, developing and/or modifying equipment and machinery maintenance schedules, etc.)  Therefore, since the appellant does not spend at least 50 percent of his duty time directing and controlling the higher-graded GS-9 and 11 workload, the alternate method is not applicable to the his position.  The highest grade which best characterizes the nature of the basic (mission-oriented) nonsupervisory work performed or overseen by the organization directed which constitutes at least 25 percent of the workload of the organization is derived via the first method (i.e., GS-7).

Level 5-4 (505 points) is credited.

Factor 6, Other conditions

This factor measures the extent to which various conditions contribute to the difficulty and complexity of carrying out supervisory duties, authorities, and responsibilities.  Conditions affecting work for which the supervisor is responsible (whether performed by Federal employees, assigned military, contractors, volunteers, or others) may be considered if they increase the difficulty of carrying out assigned supervisory or managerial duties and responsibilities.

The appellant’s position meets Level 6-3a.  This level requires coordination of administrative, technical, or complex technician work comparable to GS-9 or 10, where the coordination is similar to that described at Level 6-2a, i.e., ensuring consistency of product and conformance with formal standards or agency policy.  The appellant carries out this level of coordination over the work of three GS-9 employees whom he directly supervises.  His position does not meet Level 6-3b because he only has one subordinate supervisor and Level 6-3b can only be applied in situations with multiple subordinate supervisors.

Level 6-4a is not met.  This level requires substantial coordination and integration of a number of major work assignments, projects, or program segments of professional, scientific, technical, or administrative work comparable in difficulty to the GS-11 level.  The work performed by the appellant’s two directly-supervised GS-11 subordinates constitutes the lowest overall percentage of work performed within the Maintenance Branch (i.e., approximately 10 percent).  Therefore, we conclude the regular and ongoing work performed by only two GS-11 subordinates does not require the “substantial” coordination and integration of “major” projects or program segments required at this level.  Rather, the coordination exercised over the work of these two employees is similar to that exercised over the GS-9 employees.

Level 6-4b is not met.  Level 6-4b requires that the position direct subordinate supervisors and/or contractors who each direct substantial workloads comparable to the GS-9 or 10 level.  The appellant does not direct multiple subordinate supervisors who each direct substantial workloads comparable to the GS-9 or GS-10 level.  Therefore, the appellant’s position does not meet Level 6-4b.

Level 6-3a (975 points) is credited.

Special Situations

If the level selected under Factor 6 is either 6-1, 6-2, or 6-3, the Special Situations section may be applied.  If the position meets three or more of the situations (i.e., three or more of the numbered paragraphs), then a single level may be added to the level assigned under Factor 6.

1. Variety of work – Credited.  The appellant supervises more than one series of work which require distinctly different bodies of knowledge (i.e., five GS employees in three different occupational series and 18 FWS employees in five different occupational series).
2. Shift Operations – Not credited. Although FWS work is performed during three 8-hour shifts, the second and third shifts are not fully staffed and do not operate at the same level as the first shift during which the administrative and supervisory staff (i.e., appellant, FWS supervisor, WL, and GS employees) work.
3. Fluctuating workforce or constantly changing deadlines – Not credited.  Workforce change does not occur regularly and, although the work group does experience some deadline changes, deadlines are typically known well in advance and are used by the appellant to project costs and funding needs and to schedule and perform administrative work as well as maintenance and repair of facilities, machines, and equipment relied upon by DDCOC and other employees to perform daily work.
4. Physical dispersion – Not credited.  Although the work of the branch covers 34 buildings on Tinker AFB, the physical location of the subordinates themselves does not impact the appellant’s day-to-day supervision since work assignments are normally made via telephone, computer, or in written form and not primarily face-to-face.  In addition, the subordinate supervisor and work leader direct the work of the FWS employees who constitute the majority of the man-hours representative of the primary work of the branch.
5. Special Staffing Situations – Not credited.  The appellant’s workforce does not include a substantial portion of employees in special employment programs or comparable situations requiring regular counseling and motivational activities and/or tailoring of job assignments, work conditions, and training to fit the special circumstances.
6. Impact of specialized programs – Credited.  The appellant supervises five GS employees (i.e., three GS-9 and two GS-11 employees) at grades above the level of work credited in Factor 5, who assist in facilitating and supporting the mission of the Maintenance Branch.
7. Changing technology – Not credited.  Although new technology, equipment, and software are occasionally introduced into the branch (e.g., barcode scanners, property accountability systems, etc.) which may require employee training, the branch is not an environment where constant technical change occurs.
8. Special hazard and safety conditions – Not credited.  Although there are inherent hazards associated with maintenance and warehouse operations, the appellant’s work is not regularly made more difficult by the need to address new unsafe or hazardous conditions.

Since the appellant’s work only meets two of the special situations (i.e., variety of work and impact of specialized programs), an additional level may not be added to the level assigned under Factor 6.

GSSG Summary

The GSSG evaluation of the appellant’s position is as follows:

Summary
Factors	Level	Points
1.  Program Scope and Effect	1-2	350
2.  Organizational Setting	2-1	100
3.  Supervisory & Managerial Authority Exercised	3-2	450
4.  Personal Contacts
A.  Nature of Contacts	4A-2	50
B.  Purpose of Contacts	4B-2	75
5.  Difficulty of Typical Work Directed	5-4	505
6.  Other Conditions	6-3a	975
Total		2505

The total of 2505 points fall withinthe GS-11 range (i.e., 2355 - 2750 points) on the grade conversion chart of the GSSG.  Therefore, the GS-11 level is credited for the GSSG review.

Decision

Both the appellant’s supervisory and nonsupervisory work are credited at the GS-11 grade level.  Therefore, the position is properly classified as GS-1601-11 with the title at the agency’s discretion and with the “Supervisory” prefix.

Back to Top